I N TH E CO UR T OF A PP EALS S T AT E OF AR I Z ONA D I V I S I O N T WO T HE S T AT E OF AR I Z ONA, P eti ti o n er,

v . H O N
. D E B O R A H B E R N I N I , J udge of the Super i orC our tof the St at e of A r i zona, i n and fort he C ount yof Pi m a, R e sp o n d e n t, and ERI CA LEA D AU GH TERS- W HI TE; S E AN AAR ON J OHNS ON; J OHN CL I F T ON L I VI NGS T ON; HI L DA AL DAY; J ONI M AR I L UJ AN; J UAN CA RL OS RO DR I GUE Z ; CR I S T AL M I KE S E L L ; J AM E S F RE E M AN; M A R T IN L E E H U L E T T , JR
. ; JO H N N IE WI L L I E T RE ADWAY; AR L E NE K A N D I S TO N EY ; RO M EO A LO N SO RO D RI G U EZ; RI CK Y J O SEPH W IL L IA M S ; B E L IN D A M A R IE SAN CH EZ; J AR ED SH ERER; STEVEN ANT HONY B ONI N; RY AN A. BRA YFI ELD; KA SEY LAC H; DA NI EL OLI VER I ; TERRY CRU M RI NE; D E N N IS B A R R E R A S , JR
. ; M A R T IN S ANDE RS ; M OR AI M A S E L I G; E RN E S T RO M E RO ; J OR GE GONZ AL E Z ; RA QUE L CO RO NADO; KE L L Y S CH RE CK ; a n d S E AN O ’S H E A , R e a l P a rties in In ter e st. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 C A
- SA 2009- 0062

DEPA RTM ENT A O P I N I O N O CT 27 2009



### F I L E D BY CLE RK

C OU RTOF A PP E A LS DI VIS ION TWO2 S P E CI AL AC T I ON P RO CE E DI NG Pi m a C ount yC aus e N os . C R
- 20071798, C R
- 20072680, C R
- 20070902, C R
- 20071499, C R
- 20073079, C R
- 20073256, C R
- 20073391, C R
- 20073480, C R
- 20073727, C R
- 20073946, C R
- 20074048, C R
- 20074156, C R
- 20074805, C R
- 20080057, C R
- 20080301, C R
- 20080687, C R
- 20080876, C R
- 20081388, C R
- 20082259, C R
- 20082120, C R
- 20082990, C R
- 20083187, C R
- 20083394, C R
- 20083626, C R
- 20083996, C R
- 20091579, C R
- 20092032, C R
- 20092143, C R
- 20074485 ( C ons ol i dat ed) J UR I SDI CTI ON AC CEPTED; RELI EF GRA NTED
B arbar a LaW al l , Pi m a C ount yA t t orney B yJ acob R. L i nes
Nes c i , St
. Lo u i s & W e s tPLLC B yJa m e s N e sc i an d Jo se p h S t. L o u is T ucs on A t t orney s forPet i t i oner

T ucs on A t t orney s for R eal P art i es i n Int eres t
E S P I N O S A , Pr es i di ng J udge. ¶1 T he St at e of A r i zona ha s pet i t i oned thi s cour tfor s peci al act i on r el i ef f r om t he
r es pondentj udge’ s or dert hati t pr oduce sof t w ar e for t he I nt oxi l y zer8000, t he br eath- t es t i ng equi pm entcurr ent l yus ed byt he Tucson Pol i ce D epart m ent , t o r eal par t i es i n i nt er es t , E r i ca D a u g h t ers -W hit e and t w enty -s even otherdefe nd ants (D efen dan t s) charged i n these
cons ol i dat ed ca s es w i t h dr i vi ng w i t h a bl ood al cohol conce ntr at i on of . 08 orm or e. I n S ta te
v. B er ni ni , 220 A r i z. 536, ¶¶ 8 , 1 1 , 207 P. 3d 789, 791- 92 ( A pp. 2009) , w e vac at ed the
r es pondentj udge’ s or dert hatt he s t at e obt ai n and pr oduce “ ‘ t he s ou rce code forthe Into x il y ze r 80 0 0 an d Into x il y ze r 80 0 0 so ftw are v ersion s 8 1 0 5
. 4 4 , 8 1 0 5
. 4 5 an d 8 1 0 5
. 4 6 , ’”3

beca us e w e agr eed w i t h t he s t at e that t he r ecor d befor e us di d nots uppor therfi ndi ng thatt he
s t at e had gr eat eracc es s t han D efe ndant s t o t he s oftw ar e conf i gur at i on or“s our ce c ode. ” ¶2 I n that opi ni on, w e found i tunnece s s aryt o r eac h the s t at e’ s al t ernat i ve
a rg u m e n t th a t D e f

e n d a n ts h a d f

a iled to e sta b lish a “ su b sta n tial n e e d ” f o r th e so u rc e c o d e in p re p a ri n g th e ird e f

e n s e s , s ee A r i z. R
. C r i m . P. 15. 1( g) , par t i cul ar l y as w e have c ons t rued that
r equi r ementi n Stat e v. F i elds , 1 9 6 A ri z . 5 8 0 , 2 P .3 d 6 7 0 (A p p . 1 9 9 9 ). S e e id
. ¶ 10. A ft er
w e r emanded t hi s m att er , t he r es pondentfound ouropi ni on di d notaff ectheror dert hatthe
s t at e di s cl os e el ectr oni c ver s i on s o f the actual s oftw ar e, butonl yt he s our ce c odes fort he
s oftw ar e, and or der ed the s oftw ar e di s cl os ed. ¶3 I n t hi s pet i t i on fors peci al act i on, the s t at e s eeks r el i ef f r om the re s pondent j udge’ s or der
. I tm ai nt ai ns our d ec isi on vaca t ed the r es pondent ’ s or deri n i t s ent i r etyand
con st i tutes l aw of the case. A ccordi ng t o the st at e, the respon den ttherefore err on eou sly
c o n c lu d e d h e r o rd e r t o d is c lo s e s o f tw a re h a d “ n o t b e e n s e t a s id e , re v e rs e d o r r e c o n s id e re d .” A l t ernat i vel y , t he s t at e ar gues D efe ndant s fai l ed t o es t abl i s h a s ubs t ant i al need f orei t hert he
s oftw ar e ort he as s oci at ed s our ce c ode. W e ac ceptj ur i s di ct i on beca us e the s t at e has no
e q u a lly p la in , s p e e d y , o r a d e q u a te re m e d yb ya p p e a l, s ee Stat e v. C am poy , 220 A r i z. 539, ¶ 2, 2 0 7 P .3 d 7 9 2 , 7 9 5 (A p p . 2 0 0 9 ), a n d b e c a u s e th e is s u e is o n e o f s ta te w id e i m p o r ta n c e , s ee Ma rtin v . R e in ste in , 1 9 5 A ri z. 29 3 , ¶ 1 0 , 9 8 7 P
. 2 d 7 7 9 , 7 8 6 -87 (A p p . 1 9 9 9 ). W het her t he R es pond ent ’ s Sub s equent O rder w as P rec l uded ¶4 I n S ta t e v . Be r ni ni , 220 A r i z. 536, ¶ 11, 207 P. 3d 789, 792 ( A pp. 2009) (D aught ers - W

hi t e I ) , w e vac at ed the r es pondent j udge’ s or derof O ct ober27, 2008, “‘ t hatt he4

s t at e obt ai n t he s our ce code for t he I nt oxi l y zer 8000 and I nt oxi l y zer8000 s oftw ar e ver s i ons 8 1 0 5 .4 4 , 8 1 0 5 .4 5 a n d 8 1 0 5 .4 6 .’” In h e r su b se q u e n t o rd e r o f Ju ly3 1 , 2 0 0 9 , at iss u e in th is
s peci al act i on, t he r es pondentw r ot e:

T he or i gi nal hear i ngs befor e t hi s C ou rt addre s s ed w hetherR ul e 15. 1, A r i zona Rul es [of] C ri m ina l Pr ocedur e, r equi r ed the St at e t o p roduce a c opyof the I nt oxy l i zer8000 so u rc e c o d e a n d so f

tw a re . T h e C o u r t f

o u n d th a t th e S tate d id notpos s es s t he s our ce c o d e an d h ad no cont r ol overC M I [the co rpo rati o n that m an u fa cture s the Into x il y ze r 80 0 0 ]. H o w ev er, t he C ou rtw ent on t o fi nd t hat, fi rs t , t he S t at e had bett er access t o t he s our ce c ode and r emai ned obl i gat ed t o pr oduce i tunder the ru les an d , sec o n d , that it d id h av e p o sses sion o f th e so ftw are and or der ed pr oduct i on. T he C our tof A p p eal s found no evi dence t o s uppor tt he tr i al cour t ’ s fi n d ing thatt he St at e had bett er acc es s t o t he s our ce code a nd r ever s ed thatrul i ng, butthe o p inion d id n o t add ress the tr ial co u rt ’s ord er tha t th e so ftw are be di s closed.
. . . H ow ever , des pi t e thi s C our t ’ s or deron Sept ember10, 2 0 0 8 thatt he I nt oxi l y zers oftw ar e, ver s i ons 8105. 44, 8105. 45, and 8105. 46, be di s cl os ed— an or dert hathas notbeen s etas i de, r ever s ed orr econs i der ed— no di s cl os ur e has been f or t hcomi ng. T he S tat e i s obl i gat ed t o di s cl os e copi es of t he s oftw are i m m edi at el y , al ong w i t h w hat everm aybe nece s s aryfort he def

ens e t o oper at e or vi ew t he cont ent s of that s oftw ar e. A ccor di ngl y , t he r espo n dentor der ed: “The C ons ol i dat ed D efe ndant s ’ R eques tfor P ro d u c tio n is D E N IE D a s to th e so u rc e c o d e b u t G R A N T E D a s to th e so f tw a re a s p re v io u sly
o rd e re d b yth e c o u rt .” ¶5 F ir st, w e n o te th e inh ere n t am b igu ityin the su b ject of the re sp o n d en t’ s o rde rs of Sept ember10, 2008 and O ct ober27, 2008. B oth r efe r r ed t o “the s ource co d e fort he In to x ilyz e r 8 0 0 0 a n d In to x ilyz e r 8 0 0 0 s o f tw a re v e rs io n s 8 1 0 5
. 4 4 , 8 1 0 5 .4 5 a n d 8 1 0 5 .4 6 ,”
w h ich c o u ld m ea n the s o u rce co d e f o r th e In tox il y ze r 80 0 0 an d fo r th e ide n ti fied so ftw are5

ver s i ons , or , as t h e respondentnow s eems t o s ugges t , the s our ce c ode forthe I nt oxi l y zer 8 0 0 0 an d , sep ara tel y , the s o ftw are u sed w ith the In tox il y ze r 80 0 0 , sp ec ifi ca ll yso ftw are
v e rs io n s 8 1 0 5 .4 4 , 8 1 0 5 .4 5 , a n d 8 1 0 5 .4 6
. ¶6 B utw hat evert he i nt ended meani ng of the r es pondent ’ s or derof O ct ober27, 2008, w e agr ee w i t h t he s t at e t hat i t w as vaca t ed byourdeci s i on i n D a u g h ters-W h ite I and had no cont i nui ng vi t al i t y . C ont r aryt o r es pondent ’ s r ece ntrul i ng, the O ct ober27 or derw as the onl y deci s i on pr es ent ed t o t hi s cour ti n D a u g h ters-W h ite I t hat r equi r ed di s cl os ur e byt he
s t at e. Speci fi cal ly , af

ter re vi ew of the r es pondent ’ s m i nut e entr yor der s and r el evant tr ans cr i pt s , w e fi nd no evi dence i n t hi s r ecor d t hat s he had ever found t he s t at e pos s es s ed the
s oftw ar e orhad or der ed the s t at e t o di s cl os e i t . I n t he m i nut e ent r yof Sept ember10, 2008,
on w hi ch the r es pondentr el i ed, s he had or der ed C M I t o “p rod u ce t he s our ce c ode fort he In to x il y ze r 80 0 0 an d Into x il y ze r 80 0 0 so ftw are v ersion s 8 1 0 5
. 4 4 , 8 1 0 5
. 4 5 an d 8 1 0 5
. 4 6 .” She di d not or der t he s t at e i n t hatm i nut e entr yt o di s cl os e I nt oxi l y zer8000 s oftw ar e, as s he h a s re c e n tly s u g g e s te d , b u t ra th e r e x p re s s ly “d e c lin e [ d ] t o f in d th a t th e s ta te h a s a R u le 1 5 .1
o b lig a tio n to p ro d u c e th e p ro g ra m m in g lan g u a g e o r so f tw a re u til ize d b y C M I in its I nt oxi l y zer8000 m achi nes . ” Fi nal l y , w e not e the r es pondenti s m i s t ak en thather S e p tem b e r 10 , 2 0 0 8 m in u te e n try h a s co n tin u in g v a lid ity
. T h e re sp o n d e n t h e rse lf e x p re ss ly
v ac ated the m inu te en tryo rde r i n Jan u ary2 0 0 9
. A cc o rdin g ly , the s tat e h ad n o d iscl o su re ob l i gati on s und er the respon den t ’s previ ou s order s. ¶7 D efe ndant s di d not m eani ngful l y r es pond t o t he s t at e’ s pr ecl u sion ar gum ent i n t hei rans w er i ng br i ef orator al ar gum ent befor e thi s cour t . I ti s ar guabl e, how ever , t hat6

the r es pondenti nt ended t o di r ect the sta t e t o pr oduce I nt oxi l y zer8000 s oftw ar e w i thout
r el y i ng on a pr evi ous l yvaca t ed or der
. W e ther efor e addr es s t he s t at e’s arg u m entt hatt he
r es pondentabus ed herdi s cr et i on in fi ndi ng D efe ndant s had metthei rbur den of s how i ng
s ubs t ant i al need. W het her D ef

endants E s t abl i s hed “Su bst ant i al N eed” f or I nt ox i l y zer 8000 Sof t w are u n d er R u le 15 . 1 (g). ¶8 A l t ho ug h the suffi ci encyof a sh ow i ng of sub st anti al need m ayvaryfrom case t o cas e, a court ’ s appl i cat i on of the r el evants t andar d i s a l egal i s s ue, and ques t i ons of l aw
a re a p p ro p ri a te ly re v ie w e d b ys p e c ia l a c tio n . See Cam poy , 220 A r i z. 539, ¶ 2, 207 P. 3d at 795 ( acc ept i ng s peci al act i on j ur i s di ct i on w her e “i s s ues r ai s ed .
. . i nvol ve ques t i ons of l aw
r el at i ng t o t he i nt erpr et at i on and appl i cat i on of pr ocedur al rul es” an d are of s t at ew i de im p o rt a n c e ). A n d , “[ a]lth o u g h a tri al co u rtis i n the b est p o sit ion to ru le on d isco v ery
r eques t s , i t‘ abus es i t s di s cr et i on w hen i t m i s appl i es t he l aw or pr edi cat es i t s deci s i on upon ir rati o n al base s . ’ ” F i elds , 1 9 6 A ri z . 5 8 0 , ¶ 4 , 2 P .3 d a t 6 7 2 , q u o t i n gBla z e k v . Su p e r i or C ou rt , 1 7 7 A ri z. 53 5 , 5 3 7 , 8 6 9 P
. 2 d 5 0 9 , 5 1 1 (A p p . 1 9 9 4 ) (i n terna l ci tat ion o m itted). ¶9 I n F i elds , w e c o n c lu d e d th e re sp o n d e n t ju d g e h a d a b u se d h is d is c r e ti o n in g ra n tin g d e f

e n d a n ts’ re q u e sts to p h y sic a llyin sp e c t, ob se rv e , an d v id e o tap e th e “ p e rso n n e l, equi pm ent , and pr ocedur es us ed” by a cr i m e l abor at ory i n conduct i ng bl ood al cohol t es t i ng. I d. ¶ 1. Speci fi cal l y , even t aki ng t he defe ndant s ’ al l egat i ons as t rue, w e found theyhad fa i l ed to e sta b lish a “ su b sta n tial n e e d ” f o r th e in sp e c tio n w h e n th e y h a d n o t alle g e d “ 1 ) th a t th e ir
r es pect i ve [bl ood al cohol ] det erm i nat i ons w er e i ncorr ectori nacc ur at e; 2) how , or even i f, the al l eged l ab[or at or y ] defi ci enci es aff ect ed thei rt es tr es ul t s ; or3) anyi ndi cat i on as t o w hat7

admi s s i bl e evi dence t heyexpec t [ed] t o fi nd i n obs ervi ng t he C r i m e Lab’ s oper at i ons . ” Id
. ¶ 7 (c o llec tin g a u th o rities ); cf
. Stat e v. C onner , 215 A r i z. 553, ¶¶ 18- 25, 161 P. 3d 596, 603- 05 ( A pp. 2007 ) ( no s ubs t ant i al need f orm edi cal r ecor ds t o s how vi ct i m ’ s ps y chol ogi cal p ro p e n sityf

o r v io len c e w h e n , a m o n g o th e r re a so n s, m a jo rityo f a n ye v id e n c e o b tain e d w o u ld be i nadmi s s i bl e)
. W e r eac h a s i m i l arconcl us i on her e. ¶10 D efendant s ar gue theyhave s how n “thatt he s oftw ar e i s t o bl ame fort he anomal i es , err or s and faul t s t hat have pl agued the I nt oxi l y zer8000. ” B ut , as i n F i elds , even i f D ef en d an ts a r e corr ect , none of the anomal i es al l eged ha s been s how n t o i m pai rt he
r el i abi l i tyof the t es t s , and the r ecor d es t abl i s hes thatm os tar e “l abel i ng err or s ” t hatdo not
a f f e c t th e a c c u ra c y o f th e a lc o h o l- c o n te n t v a lu e s re p o rt e d
. C f. M ack v

. C r ui ks hank , 196 A r i z. 541, ¶ 12, 2 P. 3d 100, 104 ( A pp. 1999) ( “due pr oces s r equi r es t hat t he s t at e ens ur e thatt he t es t s i t demands
. . . pr oduce r eas onabl yacc ur at e r es ul t s ”)
. A nd none of the D efe ndant s has al l eged his or her i nd i vidual t est res ult s w ere i naccu rat e as the res ultof the soft w are “bug s” id e n tif ie d
. ¶11 F o r e x a m p le, D e f e n d a n ts’ e x p e rt w itn e ss e s te stif ied a b o u t tw o sp e c if

ic
c irc u m sta n c e s in w h ich re su lts o f tes ts p e rf

o rm e d w ith th e In to x ily z e r 8 0 0 0 w e re f o u n d to be mi s l abel ed. T heyfound s om e t es tr es ul t s ex ac tl y . 0 20 apartt hatw er e mi s l abel ed as havi ng “no . 020 agr eem en t, ” as w el l as cal i br at i on chec ks thatw er e i ncorr ect l yl abel ed as being w i thin t oler anc e or out of t oler ance f or al l ow ed v ari at i on . N ei t her of these ci r cumst ance s aff

ect ed any of t he D efe ndant s , and nei t heraff ect ed i n anyeventt he ac cur acyN o n e o f th e d e f e n se e x p e rts re v iew e d o r a d d re ss e d a n y o f th e in d iv id u a l tes t re su lts 1 or poli ce report s pert ai ning t o an y of the speci fi c D efen dan t s i n these consoli dated act i on s. A tor al ar gum ent , fo r e xampl e, couns el forD efe ndant s di s t r i but ed copi es of an 2 exhi bi ts how i ng t he I nt oxi l y zer8000 had fa i l ed t o corr ect l yl abel a cal i br at i on t hat had bee n outof t ol er ance dur i ng a s ubj ect ’ s t es t . B utthe numer i cal cal i br at i on s cor e w as pr i nt ed and a v a ilab le f

o r a tra in e d o p e ra to r’s re v iew , an d th e su b jec t w a s n o t o n e o f

th e D e f e n d a n ts in thi s cas e. T her e i s no evi dence i n t he r ecor d of how the oper at orr es ponded t o t he r es ul t , t he h isto ryo f

th e tes t su b

jec t’s p ro se c u tio n , o r h o w th e tes t m a yh a v e b e e n u se d a t trial.

8 o f th e t e s ta n d c a l i b r a t i o n r e s u l t s w h i c h a r e d i s p l a ye d i n n u m e r i c a l f o r m a n d r e v i e w e d b y a tr aine d o p era tor. ¶12 T h e sa m e h o ld s tru e f o r a v a rie tyo f

o th e r a lleg e d “ d e f

e c ts ” D e f

e n d a n ts del i neat e, i ncl udi ng the I nt oxi l y zer ’ s r es pons e t o r adi o fr equenc y i nt er fer ence , the exi s t ence of som e softw ar e pat ches , an al l eged “s ecr et hi er ar chy of err or - r epor t i ng know n onl yt o t he p ro g ra m m e rs,” th e m a c h in e ’ s f a il u r e to sh u t d o w n a u to m a tica llya f ter a “ d iag n o stic f

a il”
m essage, the pri nti ng of i nco m plet e err or m essages, and t he h i gh percentage of “ex cepti on s”
occa s i ons w hen t he m achi ne det ect s a t es t i ng pr obl em— i n t es t s admi ni s t er ed bythe Tucson P oli ce D epart m ent. D efen dan t s’ exp ert s di d n ot, and i nd eed d i d n ot att em pt t o, rel at e t hese event s t o D efe ndant s ’ t es tr es ul t s . A ddi t i onal l y , as i t di d w i t h t he m i s l abel ed t es t r es ul t s , t he 1
s t at e expl ai ned thes e per cei ved fl aw s and demonstr at ed theydo notaff ectthe r el i abi l i tyof the machi ne’ s t es tr es ul t s , a s how i ng D efe ndant s di d notr efut e. ¶13 T h e state’s w itn ess e s e x p la in ed the a ll eg ed an o m ali es, reco rd b yrec o rd. In
m os tcas es , anomal i es w er e the r es ul tof t r ai ni ng exer ci s es or qual i t y as s ur ance t es t s i n w hi ch unexpec t ed r es ul t s w er e i nt ent i onal l ytr i gger ed. N one of thes e re cor ds w as s how n t o have anyconnec t i on t o any of the t es t s per form ed on D efe ndant s . A nd, m os ti m por t ant l y , none 2P res um ably , cou nsel for that t estsubject w ou l d h ave the op po rtun i t yt o ch al l eng e t he tes t

r es ul t s t hr ough a mot i on i n l i m i ne, cr os s - exami nat i on of t he oper at or , oreven pr es ent at i on of expe r tt es t i m ony . T he exhi bi tdoes notes t abl i s h thatD efe ndant s have a s ubs t ant i al need f o r t h e s o f

tw a re f o r t h e e q u ip m e n t in o rd e r t o p re p a re th e iro w n d e f e n s e s . N ot abl y , t o t he ext entD efe ndant s s eek t o i nval i dat e or s uppr es s t he t es tr es ul t s , t hey 3 are w ell sh o rt o f th e ne ce ssary sh o w ing
. A s o u r su p rem e c o u rth as o b serv ed , d ef en d an ts are n o t e n title d to a p e rf

e c t te s t b u t, r a th e r, t o a re a s o n a b ly re lia b le o n e . S tate v. Vel as co , 165 A ri z. 48 0, 48 6-87, 799 P
. 2d 8 2 1 , 8 27 -28 (199 0) ( no requi rem ent s ci enti fi c process 9 w a s s h o w n to im p lica te th e re liab ili tyo f th e In to x ily z e r 8 0 0 0 . M a rk S to ltm a n , a f o re n sic t ox i cologi stw ho t est i fi ed fo r D efen dan t s, op i ned that “w hether[t he Int ox i l y zer 800 0 w as]
w or ki ng pr oper l yornoti s a s eparate issue fr om how i tw or ks , ” and, al t hough he mi ght “pot ent i al l y ” di s coveraddi t i onal s oftw ar e d e f e ct s byr evi ew i ng t he s our ce c ode, the ac cur acy of the equ i pm ent w ou l d b e d e term i ned byw hetheri tpassed q uali t yassur ance test s,
re g a rd le s s o f

a n ys u c h d is c o v e ri e s . ¶14 D e f

e n d a n ts re p e a ted lyp o in t o u t th a t w e o rd in a rily “ d e f e r t o th e trial c o u rt w ith
r egar d t o any fi ndi ngs of fac t , expl i ci t l y or i m pl i ci t l y m ade” as l ong as theyar e s uppor t ed by
re a s o n a b le e v id e n c e . Fr an c is v . Sa nde rs , 2 22 A r i z. 423, ¶ 10, 215 P. 3d 397, 400 ( A pp. 2 0 0 9 ). “‘ B utw hen a j udge comm it s an er r orof l aw . . . i n the pr oces s of r eac hi ng [a] di s cr et i onaryconcl u sion, [s he] m aybe r egar ded as havi ng abus ed [he r ] di s cr et i on. ’ ” I d. , q u o ti ng Tw i n C i t

y Fi r e I ns . C o. v. B urke , 2 0 4 Ar i z . 2 5 1 , ¶ 1 0 , 6 3 P. 3 d 2 8 2 , 2 8 5 ( 2 003) ( addi t i onal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ( fi r s tt w o al t er at i ons i n S a n d ers )
. A s i n F i elds , D e f e n d a n ts fai l ed to est abli sh “ho w , or even i f, the all eged [softw are] defici enc ies a f f ect ed thei r t est
r es ul t s . ” 196 A r i z. 580, ¶ 7, 2 P. 3d at673. I ns t ead, t hey s eek di s cl os ur e “mer el yi n hope that
s o m e th in g w ill tu rn u p .” Id ., q u o tin gB e ttl y o u n v . S ta te , 5 6 2 P
. 2 d 86 2, 86 6 ( Ok l a . Cr i m. 3u n d e rly in g a lco h o l tes tin g b e “ a b so lu tely p e rf e c t” a s lo n g a s re a so n a b lyre liab le) ; see al so Mack , 196 A r i z. 541, ¶ 12, 2 P. 3d at104. T hus , i ti s noteno u gh t hatD efe ndant s i dent i fy coll at eral i rr egu l ari t i es w i t h the I ntoxi l y zer, t heym ustal so show anysuch “a no m al i es” cause th e m a c h in e to b e u n re a s o n a b ly u n re lia b le
. 10 A p p . 1 9 7 7 ); s ee al

s o Stat e v. C ano , 154 A r i z. 447, 449- 50, 743 P. 2d 956, 95 8 -59 ( A pp. 1987) ( tr i al courtpr oper l ydeni ed r eques tt o exami ne off i cer ’ s per s onnel fi l e bas ed on conj ectur e i t m i ght cont ai n evi dence of pas t di s hones t y )
. T hi s i s not a s uffi cien t bas is f or
or der i ng extr aor di narydi s cl os ur e, s ee i d. , an d th e re sp o n d e n t ju d g e a b u se d h e r d isc re tio n in doi ng s o. ¶15 Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e ac ceptj ur i s di ct i on of thi s s peci al act i on and gr antr el i ef. T he r es pondent j udge’ s or derr equi r i ng the s t at e t o di s cl os e the s oftw ar e fort he In to x ilyz e r 8 0 0 0 , in a n yo f its v e rs io n s , is v a c a te d
.

PH I L I P G
. E SPIN O SA , Pr es i di ng J udge CO NC UR RI NG:

J O SE PH W
. H O W A R D , C hi ef J udge

J
. W I L L I A M B R A M M E R , J R
. , J udge